User talk:WikiPedant

Welcome!

Hello WikiPedant, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• Help pages
• How to edit a page
• Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style
• Manual of Style (Images)
• Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
• If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Wikipedia:Topical index.

Yes some of the links appear a bit boring at first, but they are VERY helpful if you ever take the time to read them.

Remember to place any articles you create into a category so we don't get orphans.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  RJFJR 03:53, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Welcome, and..

I changed Doomsday event to disambiguate and directly link to related terms. The mention of civilization being destroyed no doubt might better link to end of civilization than to civilization —destruction and contstruction being so.. different. Of course using the revert button (youre not a newbie apparently) is usually poor form. Regards, -Ste|vertigo 23:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello Ste|vertigo -- You're right. I should have edited your changes to the opening sentence of Doomsday event rather than reverting them. Sorry. I removed your changes because I believe you made the opening sentence unnecessarily complex and a bit illogical. It doesn't really make sense to follow the expression "at the least" with two alternatives. Besides, internal links to End of civilization and Human extinction were already present under "See also." In the opening sentence, I think that the internal link really should be to "Civilization" since that is the basic concept which the reader needs to understand in order to understand the opening sentence. I'll watch my step from now on... WikiPedant 04:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the edit was a little unwieldy. "Internal links to End of civilization and Human extinction were already present under "See also." Yeah, well they belong in the lede. Disambiguation is useless if its done after the fact. Maybe you can figure something out. Regards. -Ste|vertigo 04:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Doomsday films

Dear WikiPedant,

Hello and thank you for your note on Talk:Doomsday film about my attempts to categorise the list. You made some good points, and I admit that I was struggling a bit to assign the movies; The Day After Tomorrow did look odd on its own, and the less said about The Day of the Triffids, the better. The reason I added the categories was to break up the list which, when I first saw it, didn't quite meet WP:STYLE. I'm happy that you've removed any arbitrary category added by me, and I think that your new 'decade' system works well.

Nevertheless (there's always a 'nevertheless') I'm sure that there is still room in the article to address the theme of doomsday for each movie. This could be difficult to achieve, and could lead to another arbitrary categorisation, but I think it is important that some link is drawn between the year the movie was issued and the mood of Western Civilisation. For example, most Nuclear Weapons movies were released in the 1960s or 1980s (but why not the 1970s?) reflecting obvious concerns. Since the end of the Cold War, most doomsday films have concentrated on Celestial Impact, Disease, or Alien Invasion; all good metaphors, but which fears are being tickled? There's an interesting little essay for someone.

One final note for the time being; the definition of Doomsday. I believe a 'Doomsday Movie' should deal directly with the build-up to or consequences of the end of civilisation itself, and not with 'a more localized catastrophe—such as the destruction of a city.' I'm not convinced that the following movies should be on the list, and would welcome your thoughts:

• The Beginning or the End: only oblique references to Doomsday in this Hiroshima story.
• Seven Days to Noon while dealing with what would now be classed as an act of terrorism, does not quite threaten Doomsday.
• Above and Beyond is really a bio-pic of Paul Tibbets.
• Special Bulletin is more of a terrorist movie; Doomsday itself is not threatened.
• The Matrix, while set in a post-apocalytic world, deals more with rebellion against a totalitarain régime.

Let me know what you think. --die Baumfabrik 16:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

PS: I haven't seen Last Night yet: is it a good show? --die Baumfabrik 16:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Aristotle as Polymath

Hi WikiPedant

In the Aristotle article you removed the description "universal" from my comment that Aristotle was a "universal polymath" saying "universal" was redundant. But a polymath couild be good at, say, only three or four subjects. The point I was stressing that Aristotle was good at ALL subjects (at least as much as any human has been!) If you are being really pedantic you might say no one is absolutely good in absolutely every subject, therefore a universal polymath is an impossibility. But, I suggest, you should replace my hyperbole with something to indicate that Aristotle was more than the average polymath.

- User:Mal4mac

P.S. i couldn't see how to email you, hope this way of commenting isn't too deviant!

See User_talk:Mal4mac for my reply. -- WikiPedant 19:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Conflict in need of resolution/request for comment

You are requested to offer your comment in the dispute, involving inter alia your name, outlined here. It was originally your post on my talkpage on 10 September 2006 (07:44 UTC), and subsequently on the talkpages of two other users, that precipitated the series of events that constitute the core of the dispute in question, and it would therefore be helpful if you could state whether you are content with the present outcome and with the actions that the two administrators named in the dispute had taken with regard of one of my user subpages on 13 September, and if you are not content, whether you see a way to resolving the impasse. Thank you. — Prof02 08:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Aristotelianism

Thank you for your help on the Aristotelianism page. I appreciate it. Deletions and reversions without explanation are ridiculous. You have more faith, btw, in the Wiki system than I do. Eventually Wikipedia itself will only be an opinion poll... Pomonomo2003 20:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely about unexplained deletions/reversions, and am not terribly inclined to "assume good faith" when edits of this sort are made by unregistered users. The development of Wikipedia is certainly fascinating to watch, and, on balance, I think there really is progress (2 steps forward and anywhere from 1 to 1.99 back, but progress). It's planet Earth's grandest experiment in the democratization of knowledge dissemination. But there is a kind of overseer mechanism evolving, since watchlists allow those most invested in an article to "guard" it, and the admins and higher functionaries do have a capability to deal with destructive editors. WikiPedant 14:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Two steps forward, 1.9 steps back would be wonderful! But what is to keep the 'admins and higher functionaries' from themselves eventually becoming the barbarians? Regarding the Aristotelianism page I am waiting for the book by Kevin Knight to come out. At some point Amazon was reporting its title as 'Revolutionary Aristotelianism' but it seems cooler heads prevailed... Pomonomo2003 19:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow

Wow, WikiPedant, that was an incredible message on my page. Admit it, you're trying to see if I'll preen or blush, aren't you? Well, I m doing both. It's amazing to get a letter that kind. :-) I really can't stay if Giano goes, though, because a project that'll do that just isn't a place I want to be. But at long last, I have a pretty good feeling about the outcome. For one thing, Fred has removed the case, and those increasingly desperate proposals for "remedies against Giano", from the RFAR page, with the edit sum "Starting over".[1] That can only be good, my optimism tells me. Start over, and start making sense, folks, that's what we elected you for! Bishonen | talk 21:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC).

Non-free use disputed for Image:Shinplaster Canada 1900.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Shinplaster Canada 1900.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 15:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Owens

responded on my talk. very happy to get to the bottom of this one, SqueakBox 18:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I notice you dont have an email address here. If you have broadband and a microphone perhaps we could actually talk as I do want to resolve this issue and that would be a useful start. My only concern is we get this right. Give me a shout, your message on my email page isnt so easy to get to the bottom of and today's events have left me confused and in doubt re this issue.I dont have the Dread bookright now but I have a good friend who does so as I say some kind of personal communication between you and I could be brilliant, SqueakBox 01:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello SqueakBox -- I have replied on your talk page. -- WikiPedant 15:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Just a note to say that you are entirely correct about the two Joseph Owens and I've tried to explain this to SqueakBox on his talk page. Hopefully he will start being reasonable about it. Pascal.Tesson 19:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Fixed, see my contribs, Redemptionist and Jesuit, SqueakBox 16:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Glad to see it's been sorted out. Cheers, Pascal.Tesson 20:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Book cover Beyond Freedom and Dignity.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Book cover Beyond Freedom and Dignity.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 14:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:BustosDomecq jacket.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:BustosDomecq jacket.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Added Template:Book cover fur to Image:BustosDomecq jacket.jpg -- WikiPedant (talk) 19:57, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Boss byMikeRoyko jacket.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Boss byMikeRoyko jacket.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 08:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Needhams Inferno jacket.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Needhams Inferno jacket.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Added Template:Book cover fur to Image:Needhams Inferno jacket.jpg -- WikiPedant (talk) 22:49, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Book cover Beyond Freedom and Dignity.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Book cover Beyond Freedom and Dignity.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 18:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Wiktionary block

I would like to be unblocked on wiktionary please --Gabba1e (talk) 18:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC) 71.254.97.20. is the ip for wiktionary.

Sorry, I'm not an admin. Not my line of work. -- WikiPedant (talk) 02:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Borges Argentine postage stamp.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Borges Argentine postage stamp.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --22:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm content to let this one be deleted. I doubt that it qualifies for fair use. -- WikiPedant (talk) 03:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Book cover Beyond Freedom and Dignity.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Book cover Beyond Freedom and Dignity.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 11:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I added Template:Book cover fur to the image description page -- WikiPedant (talk) 19:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Boss byMikeRoyko jacket.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Boss byMikeRoyko jacket.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 12:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I added Template:Book cover fur to the image description page -- WikiPedant (talk) 19:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Katherine Mansfield NZ postage stamp.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Katherine Mansfield NZ postage stamp.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 03:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm content to let this one be deleted. I doubt that it qualifies for fair use. -- WikiPedant (talk) 22:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Re:Apology re your Nov/06 Wiktionary entry

No worries. It's an obscure term, I'm glad you found a source. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 16:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Rationalism

Please contribute to the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rationalist movement. It's fallout from a 2006 discussion that you participated in. Uncle G (talk) 00:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello Uncle G -- OK, done. Thanks for the heads-up. -- WikiPedant (talk) 04:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Jeffery Lord (Pseudonym)

I've been helping what I believe is a new user creating a new Jeffery Lord article (including just moving it to (Jeffrey Lord (Author)) but just noticed your edit on the Jeff Lord page about the AfD that I didn't see when I searched around earlier. I'm not sure if the new user is the same one who created the original deleted article? It looks like he just created a new article at Richard_Blade_(series) as well with basically the same information though he seems to be honestly trying to come up with sources (and it does appear to have some Notability imo). What do you think we should do? I would guess the options would be deleting both pages, keeping just one (I would guess the book series article) or of course deleting both again. If we keep one I think it would be reasonable to have a link to it on the Jeff Lord page. Jamesofur (talk) 00:31, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello James -- Thanks for your message. I think the series has more than enough notability to merit an article and am glad that one has been created. As for verification, the existence of the book series hardly strikes me as an issue, since lots of the titles come up as used books at amazon.com and 3 of the titles in the series are even in the Library of Congress catalog. I'd be inclined to go just with an article on the book series, and keep Jeffrey Lord as, at most, a redirect. Mostly I edit wiktionary now, but when I get a little time, I'll see if I can add something to the article about the book series. -- WikiPedant (talk) 03:11, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment, I'm going to make a note to the creating user and see if I can get him to agree. If he does I'll just get that SD'd and we can work on the book series. Thanks again Jamesofur (talk) 06:11, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: Using Watcher to watch Wiktionary

Replied here. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Possible Copyright issue with Doomsday event

Looking through the edit history of the article Doomsday event I see that you have been the most significant contributor, so wanted to approach a possible problem with you before going through formal Wikipedia channels. Specifically there appears to be a strong (and uncited) correspondence between this article and a published article by Corey S. Powell in the October 2000 Issue of 'Discover Magazine'. While the language used is not exactly the same, the subtopics and categorization in the article Doomsday event seems nearly identical to the 2000 Discover article.

Please let me know what research methods you've used in the construction of this Wikipedia article, and any reasons to allay concern of copyright infringement according to Wikipedia's best practices regarding such problems.

I'm sending you this talk page note with absolutely no malice, particularly as I am aware you are not the only editor to work on the Doomday Wikipedia article. Having been familiar with the 10 year old Discover article I noted what seemed to me to be a marked similarity, so I wanted to investigate. I hope all is going well with you. -Markeer 17:01, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello Markeer -- Thanks for your note pointing out Powell's Discovery magazine piece. I did indeed edit the Doomsday Event article in early days here (although I did not create it) and added a few of the earlier items to the list of ways the world can end. I also added the three headings: Natural Events, Non-natural Events, and Supernatural Events (the last now missing), which struck me as a logical way to group them. And at one point I rewrote the opening paragraph and the one that's there now still bears a little resemblance to what I wrote. Since 2007, though, I've generally just copyedited it off and on and reverted fatuous or vandal edits. I've never seen Powell's article, and what I added was not really researched much at all. I've always been an astronomy buff and have long known (as do many astronomy buffs) a number of the standard cosmic threats posed to human existence, and what I added was mostly just written off the top of my head. For decades I subscribed to SKY AND TELESCOPE and ASTRONOMY magazine, but never DISCOVER and I've never before seen Powell's piece. (Come to think of it, there was an article in either SKY AND TELESCOPE or ASTRONOMY in the early-to-mid 1990s which listed these sorts of events too, but my copy of that had been tossed out long before I came across the Doomsday Event article here.) Powell's article (turns out he's a well established pop science writer) is a good one, and he does indeed come up with a nice, long list of the "usual suspects" of doomsday events with colorful characterizations of each. And he groups them into natural / man-made categories too. But there are no big surprises in any of this and I think it is inaccurate to call the articles "nearly identical". Frankly, the groupings are logical and the list of events has been "out there" for a while. I didn't go over every line in both our article and his, but I see no evidence of anything that can reasonably be construed as plagiarism or a copyright vio. In fact, his individual write-ups about the events seem entirely different from the ones in the Wikipedia article. So, like the cop on the street, I'd be inclined to say "Move along, folks. Nothing to see here." -- WikiPedant (talk) 02:11, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, particularly as what you say is basically what I had hoped to hear, that any article similarities are a result of logical confluence, not intentional duplication. That you added the subheadings absent any knowledge of the Powell article is enough for me, and I hope all else is going well with you. -Markeer 16:51, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Person of interest, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Unsub (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:28, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Oops, the bot is right -- the edit was unintended. I have removed that link. 20:44, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Boss byMikeRoyko jacket.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Boss byMikeRoyko jacket.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 14:42, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Opabin Lake, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pica. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:01, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

A sloppy misspelling spotted by a helpful bot. I meant "pika". Fixed now. -- WikiPedant (talk) 20:15, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

autopatrolled

Hi WikiPedant, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the patroller right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! Katie^talk 01:42, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello Katie -- Thank you. I'm glad to see the page patrollers' workload lightened even a little. -- WikiPedant (talk) 05:49, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Article on Nagarjuna - violation of wikipedia policy

Hello Wikipedant, I saw that you removed my comments on the page on Nagarjuna citing : (Undid revision 712456872 by Vtpcnk (talk). Violation of Wikipedia policy. See Wikipedia:No original research.) (undo | thank)

Appreciate it if you could point to the exact issues I need to address.

Thanks for your help and patience.

Rgds, vtpcnk — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vtpcnk (talk • contribs) 06:35, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello vtpcnk -- Thanks for your message. You clearly have a strong interest in and solid knowledge of Nagarjuna and Madhyamika Buddhism and I note that you refer to the work of Radhakrishnan and Moore, Suzuki, T.R.V. Murti and others. (Coincidentally, back in the 1960s -- long ago! -- I took a course from T.R.V. Murti when he visited here in Canada for a semester.) However, the 7 points you added all strike me as Original Research ("OR", in Wikipedia lingo) which is strictly forbidden. It is OK to quote a published authority (briefly, one hopes) who has an opinion on Nagarjuna and it is OK to quote another published authority (also briefly) who expresses a counter-opinion. But it is not OK for editors to insert their own arguments or opinions into Wikipedia articles, and that's what your 7 points constitute -- a sustained argument against Richard P. Hayes' published view. Editors just can't do that -- they must write at all times from a Neutral Point of View ("NPOV" in Wikipedia lingo). The Hayes quotation is already preceded by 2 quotations from authorities who regard Nagarjuna as highly influential (and, for what it's worth, I agree that he was indeed, and still is, very influential), and that's what is needed here. I am sorry, but I just don't see a place for your 7-point argument in this article. Although, if you could find another quotation by an authority attesting to Nagarjuna's importance, you could add it after the Hayes quotation, resulting in a total of 3 quotations in favor of Nagarjuna's importance and 1 against, and ending the section on the right note. Just don't express your own views in an article. Respectfully -- WikiPedant (talk) 22:54, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Wikipedant, thanks for the response and your kind words.

I am a bit envious of you now since you studied under TRV Murti, who I have great admiration for as he had that rare ability to make complex things simple - even more so than his 'revered teacher' S.Radhakrishnan.

Coming to the issue at hand, there is a difference between what Richard Hayes compared to what the other two say. While Jay Garfield and Gadjin Nagao simply point to Nagarjuna's influence based on generic reasons like 'buddhists all over the world take him seriously' or that mahayana schools accept him as the founder, Richard Hayes gives specific reasons for his argument : 1. abhidharmika schools flourished for centuries without trying to counter Nagarjuna. 2. likewise Dignaga and Dharmakirti too did not make such an attempt. 3. and Buddhist intellectual life continued as if Nagarjuna never existed.

Hayes view is misinformed on many fronts :

1. Historically no school stopped development of their doctrines just because some dominant philosopher criticized their theories. They continued to defend their views and develop their doctrines. The Nyaya school being a notable example which has a continued development till this day inspite of Nagarjuna and Shankara (But then it is to be noted even for Nagarjuna and Shankara who deny the *ultimate validity* of all pramanas, still logic has its place at the phenomenal level of truth (samvritti/vyavahara). Likewise Vijnanabhikshu developing Samkya centuries after Shankara. and the Jainas continuing to develop Syaadvaadha.

2. Historically the Nyaaya school battled with the Buddhists the most - see Udhayanacharya's rebuke to God in Kusumanjali that 'His' existence depended on the Nyaya school when the Buddhists reigned supreme. Nagarjuna had criticized the pramanas on many fronts. So the pramana school - the Nyaya - has already responded to his criticisms. So Dignaga and Dharmakirti had to respond to the concerns raised by the Nyaya logicians.

3. Richard Hayes also seems to make it out as if Buddhist philosophy grew in isoloation - without any reference to the vedic and jaina schools. This is simply untrue as almost every school developed its own doctrines often by criticizing other schools and specificially one main opponent. For Nagarjuna and Dignana and Dharmakirti it was the Nyaya school who was their main opponent given their focus on pramanas. There would not have been a Madhyamika Shastram without the Nyaya Sutram. Likewise no Pramana Samukkayam without the Nyaya Bashyam. Likewise no Pramana vartikkam without the Nyaya Vartikam. There is a reason that the Dignaga-Dharmakirti school is also referred to as the Buddhist Nyaya.

This organic relationship between the various schools of Indian philosophy is obvious to most people who have read Indian philosophy as a whole - which was the case with many writers a few decades back. Hayes view is symptomatic of so many modern Buddhist writers who have studied only Buddhism and write from that partial perspective.

So is this my original contribution?

That schools kept developing their doctrines inspite of stiff opposition (with specific mention of the nyaya and vijnana bhikshu) and the dialogue between the nyaya logicians and nagarjuna/dignaga/dharmakirti is specifically mentioned by S.Radhakrishnan in his Indian Philosophy.

I would like to add that Nagarjuna's influence was also felt by Vedic schools which saw the rise of Advaita Vedanta - which is again written about by so many authors. Advaita's prime opponent of the day was the Mahayana. So it is in consideration of Nagarjuna's and Vasubandhu's views that Advaita Vedanta itself reinterprets the Upanishads. The influence is so marked that Advaitins like Sri Harsha and Chitsuka defend Madhyamika views against the attacks of the Mimamsakas - imagine the irony of the uttara mimamsa defending nastikas against the purva mimamsa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vtpcnk (talk • contribs) 03:46, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Wikipedant, I have added quotes from S.Radhakrishnan and Chandradhar Sharma to show how Madhyamika influenced Advaita Vedanta. Unfortunately I don't have TRV Murti's work on hand or I would have used it. Thanks.

---

April 6th.

Hi Wikipedant, I went through the article on Nagarjuna and found these inconsistencies. Appreciate it if you could look through them.

There is no reference/citation provided for the (disputable) claims made below - which would fall under 'original research' I think (listed as per subsection) :

Writings : "The only work that all scholars agree is Nagarjuna's is the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā (Fundamental Verses on the Middle Way), which contains the essentials of his thought in twenty-seven chapters".

"There is an ongoing, lively controversy over which of those works are authentic. Contemporary research suggest that these works belong to a significantly later period, either to late 8th or early 9th century CE, and hence can not be authentic works of Nāgārjuna".

Philosophy : "If the most commonly accepted attribution of texts (that of Christian Lindtner) holds, then he was clearly a Māhayānist, but his philosophy holds assiduously to the Śrāvaka Tripiṭaka, and while he does make explicit references to Mahāyāna texts, he is always careful to stay within the parameters set out by the Śrāvaka canon".

Shunyata : "For Nāgārjuna, as for the Buddha in the early texts, it is not merely sentient beings that are "selfless" or non-substantial; all phenomena (dhammas) are without any svabhāva, literally "own-being", "self-nature", or "inherent existence" and thus without any underlying essence. They are empty of being independently existent; thus the heterodox theories of svabhāva circulating at the time were refuted on the basis of the doctrines of early Buddhism. This is so because all things arise always dependently: not by their own power, but by depending on conditions leading to their coming into existence, as opposed to being".

"Understanding the nature of the emptiness of phenomena is simply a means to an end, which is nirvana. Thus Nagarjuna's philosophical project is ultimately a soteriological one meant to correct our everyday cognitive processes which mistakenly posits svabhāva on the flow of experience".

Further issues :

1. Error of omission :

Philosophy : "From studying his writings, it is clear that Nāgārjuna was conversant with many of the Śrāvaka philosophies and with the Mahāyāna tradition".

--There is no mention of astika schools like Nyaya or Samkya which Nagarjuna clearly considers in the Mulamadhyamakakarika.

2. Misrepresentation :

Two truths : "Hence according to Garfield: Suppose that we take a conventional entity, such as a table. We analyze it to demonstrate its emptiness, finding that there is no table apart from its parts […]. So we conclude that it is empty. But now let us analyze that emptiness […]. What do we find? Nothing at all but the table’s lack of inherent existence. […]. To see the table as empty […] is to see the table as conventional, as dependent.[24]"

-- The above is actually Nagasena's view from Milindapanha and not Nagarjuna's. Nagarjuna's is not questioning the selfness of any object just because it is a composite entity made up of parts and without parts it has no existence. Rather Nagarjuna questions the existence of each (singular) part itself and show that the entity has no svabhaava - that there is no substance without attributes and vice versa and that both exist only in relation to each other.

Even the section on causality is not well written and doesn't clearly bring out the actual argument of the Madhyamika. I can replace it with actual quotes from better explained works. Please let me know if that is ok.

Thanks for your patience.

Rollback

I have granted the "rollbacker" permission to your account. After a review of some of your contributions, I believe you can be trusted to use rollback for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, contact me and I will remove it. Good luck and thanks. – Gilliam (talk) 05:50, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello Gilliam -- Thank you. -- WikiPedant (talk) 05:52, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, WikiPedant. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Boss byMikeRoyko jacket.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Boss byMikeRoyko jacket.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:20, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

No longer orphaned. I created the article Boss (book) and used this jpg in the infobox there. WikiPedant (talk) 08:12, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Cogito ergo sum lead para

Thx re your reversion of 1/24 edit to Cogito ergo sum by an unidentified user. As the author of that lead para, I'm prompted by that attempted edit to make the following stylistic change:

From:

• A fuller form, dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum ("I doubt, therefore I think, therefore I am"), aptly captures Descartes' intent.

to

• A fuller form, penned by Antoine Léonard Thomas in an award-winning 1765 essay in praise of Descartes, aptly captures Descartes’s intent: {{lang|la|dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum}→} ("I doubt, therefore I think, therefore I am").

with changes to the footnote from:

• The dubito, often mistakenly attributed to Descartes, was coined by Antoine Léonard Thomas in a 1765 essay in praise of Descartes. (See Other forms.)

to

• The dubito is often mistakenly attributed to Descartes. (See Other forms.)

Thoughts? humanengr (talk) 06:44, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello humanengr -- Thank you for your note. Sure, I'm fine with this change. You're right -- it probably is a little better to name Antoine Léonard Thomas in the main text rather than in the note. Personally, I probably wouldn't say "award-winning", since it isn't explained and probably isn't worth a side trip into an explanation. I'm not sure if the change from "Descartes'" to "Descartes's" was intentional, but both forms are correct. -- WikiPedant (talk) 07:27, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Agree re removing the qualifier. I'm also now leaning toward removing "in a 1765 essay in praise of Descartes" as well. Re "'s", LlywelynII changed that 1-1/2 y ago in the rest of the article to comport with WP MoS. humanengr (talk) 15:59, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

And both forms aren't actually correct. There are people who misapply the old treatment of classic names (e.g., Moses') to modern ones but Descartes's book belongs to Descartes and Descartes' book belongs to a group, each member of which is a Descarte. It's fine to note that many→most people would pronounce possessive Descartes the second way and that we should try to reflect speech in our writing, but that isn't actually English grammar and isn't "correct" in any meaningful sense. — LlywelynII 10:31, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello Llywelyn -- Unfortunately, the rules of grammar, like those of spelling, are a product of usage, meaning that they are slippery indeed. I agree with the logic of your point (made with the clever and amusing example of the fictitious group, each of whose members is a "Descarte"), but logic and usage, alas, are 2 different things. Even MOS:POSS allows either form of the possessive in articles, while prescribing consistency within an article. Not a hot button item, for me. One of my big grammatical peeves is the now pretty much normalized use of "their" to refer to a single person whose gender is not known (it should be "his or her" or the sentence should be otherwise reworked to avoid "their", damn it!). (And another, although not grammatical matter, is the sloppy transformation in the meaning of "begs the question" to be synonymous with "raises the question". Boy, does that grate on a person with a background in philosophy.) But the world has it ways, and in the long run we are stuck with them. Yours in the faith -- WikiPedant (talk) 19:53, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:47, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Guidance

Could you please suggest where to best place this unique public domain video from The Internet Archive? This film appears to have been made by the City of St. Paul circa 1941 about it's police department's duties. I used The Internet Archive's description, which included "Chartoon." I didn't notice that. It does have stop-action animation and still photos. Citizens of St.Paul look at their city's Wikipedia page, so this is a where they can find this unique video, which is not easily found. A ri gi bod (talk) 15:13, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but it is just a piece of "fluff" propaganda which is out-of-date, uninformative, and visually unappealing. I can't think of any suitable place for it except in the archive. Believe me, after that one, I never want to watch another "chartoon". -- WikiPedant (talk) 22:12, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Joseph Smith

Hi Wikipedant -thanks for the heads up. I have provided a reference for the claim, linking to a whole Wiki article on his criminal history - hopes that's enough.

Using a preposition to end a sentence with.

With regard to my Gertrude Stein edit, I could have said "... with something she would approve of.". But fortunately it worked without the "of".

Which reminds me of a story; you've probably heard it, being a pendant, but just in case you haven't:

Winston Churchill had no quarrel with ending a sentence with a preposition. One day a junior editor "corrected" one such sentence of his; you can imagine his reaction. He wrote back: "This is an impertinence up with which I shall not put.".

BMJ-pdx (talk) 22:50, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

P.S.: If anyone wants to comment on the relative placement of my end-quotes and periods, we could have a long discussion on that.

WP:POINTY?

This edit is problematic [2] because it corrects a minor problem (grammar) by introducing a major problem (a false definition). By all means grammar should be correct, but I'd rather see something be right with poor grammar than wrong with good grammar. Carl Fredrik ^talk 10:48, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello @CFCF: You're right. The OED confirms that unintentionality is intrinsic to the meaning of this obscure term (although you wavered a little on this point yourself -- it took even you two edits to fully settle on a meaning). Anyhow, I should have looked it up before editing. Thank you for fixing it. (BTW, even the OED is a bit iffy on whether harmfulness is intrinsic to the meaning. All of the OED's sample usages suggest harmful consequences, but the OED definition still does not stipulate harmfulness.) -- WikiPedant (talk) 05:51, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Dr. No

Not every edit has to add information; my edit was to clear up badly-written sentences, including one sentence 56 words long. Why are you protecting what is not written well? - DiogenesNY (talk) 00:59, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello

Thank you for managing this disruptive edits on Sanskrit. But if I may advise you shouldn't be engaging these kind of editors (i.e newbies and possible socks) in reverts and counter reverts even though I know you're right. Once you revert 1 to 2 times and warn but they failed to heed just report them direct to WP:ANEW, for better action by administrators. You can see now after reporting him, he is blocked simply, otherwise he could have continued his disruption non stop, whilst you are making needless reverts. Thanks –Ammarpad (talk) 08:23, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello @Ammarpad: Right, I often do warn and report, but I was in the middle of something else. So I just kept hitting the rollback button, figuring it would attract the attention of another rollbacker or admin who had time to deal with the guy. -- WikiPedant (talk) 23:52, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

OK, no problem –Ammarpad (talk) 02:16, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, WikiPedant. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

April 20th Dates

Hi! So I just recently edited the April 20th wikipedia article, on the Columbine sub-subsection. Personally, I've been working on updating a page for Dave Sanders and Daniel Rohrborough. I don't think it matters that they don't have a wikipedia page. It really doesn't. Whether they are appropriately listed on another Wikipedia page or not, we should not only be marking Rachel Scott, Cassie Bernall, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold as notable people of the event. All of the 15 students that died (whether they were victims or perpetrators) that day are notable people, they are all heroes and deserve the commemoration. I'm not trying to be rude at all, so sorry if I give off that impression, but I am definitely trying to do what is right here. We need to bring attention to each and every life lost that day because they were all heroic. Not just Rachel and Cassie were important victims. I hope you understand this. -- Genevejuneau (talk) 07:33, 18 December 2017

Sorry, but this is an encyclopedia and the "existing article" test is widely applied to lists. Besides, adding each massacre victim to the date lists opens a bottomless pit. Massacres are an all-too-frequent event in the U.S.A., and setting this precedent invites listing the names of all the 9/11 victims, or all the victims at Sandy Hook, San Bernardino, Vegas, and on and on. (Or to give Norway equal opportunity, the 2011 massacre at the youth camp outside of Oslo.) No, it just doesn't work. Respectfully -- WikiPedant (talk) 07:47, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Quotation marks

OK, your edit must stand, but as any copy editor will tell you, Wikipedia MOS is wrong on this and in contradiction of most reputable style manuals (Chicago, AP, MLA). Punctuation, with very rare exceptions, goes inside the quotation marks, even with song titles. (Ref. CMS 5.10) The reason for this is not grammatical or semantic, it was a compositors rule, back when text was written for publication. The fact that Wikipedia will not be printed is a poor justification for laziness and relaxation of standards. Au revoir. SamJohn2013 (talk) 13:58, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

True, @SamJohn2013, but you cite only American authorities and Wikipedia is not simply a made-in-America product. We Canadians reside in the mushy middle between the US and UK, and we (like Wikipedia) tend to follow the Brits in this matter. So, for example, the University of Oxford Style Guide gives this example sentence at the bottom of p. 16, column 1:

Queen’s ‘Bohemian Rhapsody’, from the album Night at the Opera, reached number one in both 1975 and 1991.

Il faut s'adapter au monde tel qu'il est. -- WikiPedant (talk) 22:48, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

You are indeed in the mushy middle, which is nowhere. Your citation of the Oxford Style Guide is good as far as it goes, but the justification is incomplete and will not serve this case. If you wish to abide by British English, you cannot pick and choose from whatever style manual you wish. If you claim Oxford Style, then "British practice is normally to enclose quoted matter between single quotation marks, and to use double quotation marks for a quotation within a quotation." (R.M. Ritter. The Oxford Guide to Style. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. p.148) You obviously cannot change all the quotation marks in Wikipedia. Therefore it is clear that punctuation outside the marks is an inconsistency and an error in the Wikipedia MOS. According to Wikipedia, when making the distinction between British and American English, one must also consider the existing variety in the article (MOS:ARTCON). Then there is the possibility of strong national ties (MOS:TIES) to the subject. In this case, both of these points favor the American style, after all, the article is about Burl Ives, not Freddie Mercury. We can both agree that the article is technically correct according to Wikipedia, but this is a real flaw that must be addressed. I feel that this matter should be referred to the editorial board for a judgment, because the problem could cause chaos and conflict for copy editors throughout all of Wikipedia.

PS: Having lived and studied in Canada for fifteen years, I have a great appreciation for British English, and use it as the language of choice when I am in doubt. But all too often I have heard "Canadianism" used as an excuse for sloppy writing and careless punctuation. The sad fact is that Canadian English can have no claim to authority for the higher functions of the language. It must look for its authority to the east or to the south. It is not a matter of adapting to the world as it is. A copy editor cannot work both sides of the ocean, using one rule here and another there. That is why I hope that the bosses will declare one or the other of these to be the dominant punctuation system for English Wikipedia.

PSS: I am happy for the opportunity to have a discussion with someone who knows the style manual and cares about punctuation. This is becoming increasingly rare as the printed page dies. God Save the Queen. SamJohn2013 (talk) 01:53, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Sources needed for Days of the Year pages

I see you recently accepted this pending change to February 2. I looked for a source for this info in the Battle of Inverlochy and was able to find one and added it to February 2.

You're probably not aware of this change, but Days of the Year pages are no longer exempt from WP:V and direct sources are required for additions. For details see the WikiProject Days of the Year style guide.

Please do not accept additions to day of year pages where no direct source has been provided on that page. The burden to provide sources for additions to these pages is on the editor who adds or restores material to these pages. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 23:54, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and added a source to back up your recent addition to February 2. Please try to find sources for additions to these pages as the burden to provide them is on the editor who adds or restores material to these pages. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 22:33, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

@Toddst1: So, are you planning to add footnotes to every item in every list for every day of the year? If so, looks like you've got your life's work cut out for you. Knock yourself out. -- WikiPedant (talk) 23:45, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

No, I'm not. However the community has decided that these pages require reliable sources. You're expected to do your part if you add content. Instead of being defeatist, put your pedanticism to good use. Toddst1 (talk) 06:34, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

So, you're still accepting unsourced additions to pending-changes articles like this. The pending changes were set to protect those articles, and you accepting changes that don't meet the standards is disruptive. Please stop. Toddst1 (talk) 22:50, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

@Toddst1: Right, I previously examined the closed discussion about this. It ended with no consensus (a 12-10 vote). The subsequent modification to Wikipedia:WikiProject Days of the year, which you keep citing, was written by you, and this page is clearly flagged as an essay that is neither an official policy nor even official guideline. Like most editors, I view the "days of the year" pages as lists linking to existing WP articles (which is why redlinks are not allowed in the "days of the year" pages) and, like lede summaries, they do not require citations. There is no basis in WP policy for your claimed "standards" or your harassment. You, sir, are the disruptive editor here. Now get off of my talk page, and stay off of it. -- WikiPedant (talk) 23:14, 15 February 2018 (UTC)